This week, I'll be having an email dialogue with Ellen Ruppel Shell, whose new book, "Cheap", argues that cheapness is often no bargain.

Dear Megan,

It seems we have several things in common--I, too, spent a college summer working in the Catskills--as a waitress in an Italian themed hotel where I served three meals a day to a very demanding clientele and shared a room (though admittedly not a bed) with eight other waitresses. The gig ended abruptly in scandal; one of my roommates was caught in flagrante delicto with the cook during working hours. In the spirit of fairness, the entire waitressing staff was fired without pay and sent home--I think the bus boys took over the serving duties until replacements were mustered.

These memories are light years away from the subject at hand--which seems to be Bagis clothes hangers and Kura loft beds and banana leaf Gullholmen chairs made by happy workers in China and Vietnam. IKEA does not play a large role in CHEAP but I was lucky enough to spend a few days there--one at corporate headquarters in the lovely and historic costal city of Helsingborg, Sweden, and a couple at the charming and remote town of Almhult, where the company was founded and where today stand its design headquarters, quality control center and--most impressively--the airplane hangar-like studio where the iconic IKEA catalogue is shot. (More copies distributed around the globe each year than the Bible!) Many of us think of IKEA as the world's largest furniture maker, but in fact, the company makes very little of anything. It's the world's largest furniture retailer, its much vaunted Swedish "style" hammered out by tens of thousands of workers mostly in the employ of other companies. China is the company's largest supplier, but IKEA has suppliers in fifty-two countries, including the United States, where to great fanfare it installed a factory in Danville, Virginia last year that builds coffee tables made quite literally of particle board and cardboard.

I chose to visit IKEA because it seems like the anti-Wal-Mart, a classy, progressive company where value and good values coexist. It flaunts what business scholars call "brand personality traits" to convey an image of youth, friendliness, and hipness which, along with its famous design, combine to make low price furnishings acceptable to a crowd that would never consider buying a night gown--let alone a night table-- at Wal-Mart. Target, H+M and a number of other low price purveyors work almost as hard to undermine the very sensible assumption that low price is a signal of low quality. But no company does it better than IKEA.

IKEA challenges its designers to create to a specific price point--say 50 cents for a mug, or $100 for a table and two chairs. And every year, the price is to go lower. This "making the impossible possible" (a refrain I heard again and again in Almhult)--requires that IKEA cut corners, just like any other discounter. There's no miracle here--founding chairman Ingvar Kamprad--today one of the world's richest men living in tax exile in Switzerland--had a dream of applying what he described as "shrewd logistics to offer home furnishings at such low prices that the masses can afford to buy them." What this means of course is that the masses who make those furnishings are treated pretty much the way other makers of low price goods are treated. It also means that environmental considerations take a far back seat to price. So we can trace to IKEA the by now familiar reports of environmental degradation and labor abuses, things we've not only come to take for granted, but to rationalize. After all, workers in China and other low wage countries are better off laboring in factories under less than savory conditions than staying home and starving on the family farm, right? At least, that's what we are told, and told, and told again, even by well meaning thinkers like New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, who earlier this year penned a column entitled "Where Sweatshops are a Dream." The thinking goes like this: poorly paid, overworked and even abused workers in the developing world are on the first step of a path similar to the one that led Americans from the abuses of the Industrial Revolution to the glorious opportunities we enjoy today. But such arguments, while compelling, tend to oversimplify history. Workers rights in the US were forged in a crucible that was highly visible to consumers--many of whom were either workers themselves, or knew someone who was. It is this identification that led to public outrage and eventually to reforms. But the thousands of labor linked incidents killing and injuring workers in China, Cambodia, Vietnam and other low wage countries happen out of sight--and out of mind--of most American and European consumers. All we see is the price, and few of us stop to think about how it got so very, very low.

Part of the reason these prices are so low is that American interests work mightily to keep them that way, by scaling back protections for workers and sharply curtailing the role of unions in the developing world. That is, the workers in these countries want to fight back--and would--were American interests not so intent on keeping them in their place. Some of these workers return to their farms, but many others cannot make the fare. They're stuck--they work in factories not because they believe it will pull them up, but because they quite literally cannot get out. And if those workers try to improve their lot by demanding better conditions or overtime pay, the factories can and often do move go elsewhere--further and further beyond the reach of rule of law. This "race to the bottom" may serve workers temporarily, but over the long term, it leads to income disparity and--for many workers a cycle of hopeless entrapment and poverty.

Roughly 25 percent of the global workforce is now Chinese. Given such enormous firepower, China inevitably sets the norm for wages and working standards in the global supply chain. American corporate interests have chipped away at those standards and wages in order to maximize profits and influence, as well as to serve their shareholders. The chronic disregard for workers' rights in China's foreign-invested private sector threatens wages and working conditions around the globe, including the hard-won gains of American workers. This helps explain why incomes for 90 percent of Americans have remained essentially flat in the US since the 1970s. The environmental degradation also comes back to haunt us--Chinese made furniture--half of all furniture in the world is made there--has stoked a cut and consume cycle that is eating through the world's forests at an a rate unprecedented in human history. Deforestation accounts for over 18 percent of global carbon emissions--more than the entire global transport system or the global industrial manufacturing sector.

The weaker the rule of law, the fewer the protections, the more corrupt and abusive the system, the lower the price. And that's the system we're buying into when we buy into those "everyday low" prices, be they at Wal-Mart or IKEA. Megan, you said in an earlier post that there are worse things threatening America than the obesity epidemic. I agree, but I don't think that living with grandma's furniture--ugly as it might be--is one of them. The more we know about how and where and of what our consumer goods are made, the wiser our purchasing decisions will be, on both a personal and a political level. This is not to suggest that we should all rush out to buy weighty, expensive stuff--far from it! In fact, some very inexpensive and portable old standbys--like boards and cinder block book cases for wandering graduate students--might well be worth considering over the far more expensive--and only superficially more tasteful--IKEA option.

Thanks, Megan, for the opportunity....I look forward to responding to more of your thoughts on CHEAP.

Most Popular

Writing used to be a solitary profession. How did it become so interminably social?

Whether we’re behind the podium or awaiting our turn, numbing our bottoms on the chill of metal foldout chairs or trying to work some life into our terror-stricken tongues, we introverts feel the pain of the public performance. This is because there are requirements to being a writer. Other than being a writer, I mean. Firstly, there’s the need to become part of the writing “community”, which compels every writer who craves self respect and success to attend community events, help to organize them, buzz over them, and—despite blitzed nerves and staggering bowels—present and perform at them. We get through it. We bully ourselves into it. We dose ourselves with beta blockers. We drink. We become our own worst enemies for a night of validation and participation.

Even when a dentist kills an adored lion, and everyone is furious, there’s loftier righteousness to be had.

Now is the point in the story of Cecil the lion—amid non-stop news coverage and passionate social-media advocacy—when people get tired of hearing about Cecil the lion. Even if they hesitate to say it.

But Cecil fatigue is only going to get worse. On Friday morning, Zimbabwe’s environment minister, Oppah Muchinguri, called for the extradition of the man who killed him, the Minnesota dentist Walter Palmer. Muchinguri would like Palmer to be “held accountable for his illegal action”—paying a reported $50,000 to kill Cecil with an arrow after luring him away from protected land. And she’s far from alone in demanding accountability. This week, the Internet has served as a bastion of judgment and vigilante justice—just like usual, except that this was a perfect storm directed at a single person. It might be called an outrage singularity.

Forget credit hours—in a quest to cut costs, universities are simply asking students to prove their mastery of a subject.

MANCHESTER, Mich.—Had Daniella Kippnick followed in the footsteps of the hundreds of millions of students who have earned university degrees in the past millennium, she might be slumping in a lecture hall somewhere while a professor droned. But Kippnick has no course lectures. She has no courses to attend at all. No classroom, no college quad, no grades. Her university has no deadlines or tenure-track professors.

Instead, Kippnick makes her way through different subject matters on the way to a bachelor’s in accounting. When she feels she’s mastered a certain subject, she takes a test at home, where a proctor watches her from afar by monitoring her computer and watching her over a video feed. If she proves she’s competent—by getting the equivalent of a B—she passes and moves on to the next subject.

There’s no way this man could be president, right? Just look at him: rumpled and scowling, bald pate topped by an entropic nimbus of white hair. Just listen to him: ranting, in his gravelly Brooklyn accent, about socialism. Socialism!

And yet here we are: In the biggest surprise of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, this thoroughly implausible man, Bernie Sanders, is a sensation.

He is drawing enormous crowds—11,000 in Phoenix, 8,000 in Dallas, 2,500 in Council Bluffs, Iowa—the largest turnout of any candidate from any party in the first-to-vote primary state. He has raised $15 million in mostly small donations, to Hillary Clinton’s $45 million—and unlike her, he did it without holding a single fundraiser. Shocking the political establishment, it is Sanders—not Martin O’Malley, the fresh-faced former two-term governor of Maryland; not Joe Biden, the sitting vice president—to whom discontented Democratic voters looking for an alternative to Clinton have turned.

During the multi-country press tour for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation, not even Jon Stewart has dared ask Tom Cruise about Scientology.

During the media blitz for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation over the past two weeks, Tom Cruise has seemingly been everywhere. In London, he participated in a live interview at the British Film Institute with the presenter Alex Zane, the movie’s director, Christopher McQuarrie, and a handful of his fellow cast members. In New York, he faced off with Jimmy Fallon in a lip-sync battle on The Tonight Show and attended the Monday night premiere in Times Square. And, on Tuesday afternoon, the actor recorded an appearance on The Daily Show With Jon Stewart, where he discussed his exercise regimen, the importance of a healthy diet, and how he still has all his own hair at 53.

Stewart, who during his career has won two Peabody Awards for public service and the Orwell Award for “distinguished contribution to honesty and clarity in public language,” represented the most challenging interviewer Cruise has faced on the tour, during a challenging year for the actor. In April, HBO broadcast Alex Gibney’s documentary Going Clear, a film based on the book of the same title by Lawrence Wright exploring the Church of Scientology, of which Cruise is a high-profile member. The movie alleges, among other things, that the actor personally profited from slave labor (church members who were paid 40 cents an hour to outfit the star’s airplane hangar and motorcycle), and that his former girlfriend, the actress Nazanin Boniadi, was punished by the Church by being forced to do menial work after telling a friend about her relationship troubles with Cruise. For Cruise “not to address the allegations of abuse,” Gibney said in January, “seems to me palpably irresponsible.” But in The Daily Show interview, as with all of Cruise’s other appearances, Scientology wasn’t mentioned.

The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. Here’s what that means for its strategy—and for how to stop it.

What is the Islamic State?

Where did it come from, and what are its intentions? The simplicity of these questions can be deceiving, and few Western leaders seem to know the answers. In December, The New York Times published confidential comments by Major General Michael K. Nagata, the Special Operations commander for the United States in the Middle East, admitting that he had hardly begun figuring out the Islamic State’s appeal. “We have not defeated the idea,” he said. “We do not even understand the idea.” In the past year, President Obama has referred to the Islamic State, variously, as “not Islamic” and as al-Qaeda’s “jayvee team,” statements that reflected confusion about the group, and may have contributed to significant strategic errors.

The new version of Apple’s signature media software is a mess. What are people with large MP3 libraries to do?

When the developer Erik Kemp designed the first metadata system for MP3s in 1996, he provided only three options for attaching text to the music. Every audio file could be labeled with only an artist, song name, and album title.

Kemp’s system has since been augmented and improved upon, but never replaced. Which makes sense: Like the web itself, his schema was shipped, good enough,and an improvement on the vacuum which preceded it. Those three big tags, as they’re called, work well with pop and rock written between 1960 and 1995. This didn’t prevent rampant mislabeling in the early days of the web, though, as anyone who remembers Napster can tell you. His system stumbles even more, though, when it needs to capture hip hop’s tradition of guest MCs or jazz’s vibrant culture of studio musicianship.

Some say the so-called sharing economy has gotten away from its central premise—sharing.

This past March, in an up-and-coming neighborhood of Portland, Maine, a group of residents rented a warehouse and opened a tool-lending library. The idea was to give locals access to everyday but expensive garage, kitchen, and landscaping tools—such as chainsaws, lawnmowers, wheelbarrows, a giant cider press, and soap molds—to save unnecessary expense as well as clutter in closets and tool sheds.

The residents had been inspired by similar tool-lending libraries across the country—in Columbus, Ohio; in Seattle, Washington; in Portland, Oregon. The ethos made sense to the Mainers. “We all have day jobs working to make a more sustainable world,” says Hazel Onsrud, one of the Maine Tool Library’s founders, who works in renewable energy. “I do not want to buy all of that stuff.”

A leading neuroscientist who has spent decades studying creativity shares her research on where genius comes from, whether it is dependent on high IQ—and why it is so often accompanied by mental illness.

As a psychiatrist and neuroscientist who studies creativity, I’ve had the pleasure of working with many gifted and high-profile subjects over the years, but Kurt Vonnegut—dear, funny, eccentric, lovable, tormented Kurt Vonnegut—will always be one of my favorites. Kurt was a faculty member at the Iowa Writers’ Workshop in the 1960s, and participated in the first big study I did as a member of the university’s psychiatry department. I was examining the anecdotal link between creativity and mental illness, and Kurt was an excellent case study.

He was intermittently depressed, but that was only the beginning. His mother had suffered from depression and committed suicide on Mother’s Day, when Kurt was 21 and home on military leave during World War II. His son, Mark, was originally diagnosed with schizophrenia but may actually have bipolar disorder. (Mark, who is a practicing physician, recounts his experiences in two books, The Eden Express and Just Like Someone Without Mental Illness Only More So, in which he reveals that many family members struggled with psychiatric problems. “My mother, my cousins, and my sisters weren’t doing so great,” he writes. “We had eating disorders, co-dependency, outstanding warrants, drug and alcohol problems, dating and employment problems, and other ‘issues.’ ”)

Jim Gilmore joins the race, and the Republican field jockeys for spots in the August 6 debate in Cleveland.

After decades as the butt of countless jokes, it’s Cleveland’s turn to laugh: Seldom have so many powerful people been so desperate to get to the Forest City. There’s one week until the Republican Party’s first primary debate of the cycle on August 6, and now there’s a mad dash to get into the top 10 and qualify for the main event.

With former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore filing papers to run for president on July 29, there are now 17 “major” candidates vying for the GOP nomination, though that’s an awfully imprecise descriptor. It takes in candidates with lengthy experience and a good chance at the White House, like Scott Walker and Jeb Bush; at least one person who is polling well but is manifestly unserious, namely Donald Trump; and people with long experience but no chance at the White House, like Gilmore. Yet it also excludes other people with long experience but no chance at the White House, such as former IRS Commissioner Mark Everson.